Customers and retailers don't want Linux on netbooks
DFS
Linux operating system. For many potential buyers, other than technophiles,
that was a deal-killer, said Stephen Baker, NPD Group's vice president of
industry analysis.
"Customers don't want Linux on those machines. Retailers don't want Linux on
those machines," he said. "The fact that there's a Windows platform
available has been a big reason that we've seen a lot of the retailers start
to pick these products up and try to get them into mass distribution."
....
"One thing is for sure, he said: Putting Linux on them is not going to help
sales. He estimates that 90 percent of netbooks sales are devices that have
Windows XP on them.
"Linux just isn't a platform for the mass market," he said. "All the early
reports of lots of returns of Linux netbooks were because people bought them
with that and didn't know what to do with it."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28627170/
Microsoft is doomed
George Kettleborough
--
George Kettleborough
DFS
> MSNBC slightly biased towards Windows? Surely not!
Most definitely not. I've been reading the website for years, and I've
never seen the slightest amount of bias in news or tech coverage. They've
not once 'slandered' Linux or Mac, and in fact they've run several pro-Linux
articles or reviews.
The NPD Group Vice President of industry analysis is being bribed and
controlled by Microsoft, of course...
Sermo Malifer
"That strategy was taken, in part, to make sure Linux did not become the
dominant operating system for netbooks, and because Windows Vista,
Microsoft’s current OS, was so unpopular, said Michael Cherry, analyst
for Directions on Microsoft, an independent research firm."
“Initially these netbooks were coming out with a configuration that
wouldn’t support Vista,” he said. “And I think there was concern that if
you didn’t have some offering, that all these machines would be sold
with Linux on them. So, Microsoft has allowed manufacturers to continue
to provide Windows XP.”
There's some great double talk in that article. If nobody wanted Linux
in a NetBook, why did M$ need to develop a WinXP/Win7 strategy in a
desperate bid to stem the tide of Linux?
If I have a small device that's meant to do Web browsing and email, why
do I need Windows?
amicus_curious
"Sermo Malifer" <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:glcoac$t2c$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
> There's some great double talk in that article. If nobody wanted Linux
> in a NetBook, why did M$ need to develop a WinXP/Win7 strategy in a
> desperate bid to stem the tide of Linux?
>
Netbook device originated MOL as a linux powered, restricted function device
that would browse the web and do email much like the latest cell phones,
except that it would have a more traditional and useful display and
keyboard. After all, the web and mail is a real pain from a telephone
device.
Netbooks were not such a hot item, though, since they didn't actually do
more than the phones and cost a lot and were bulky compared to phones, etc.
The answer was to make the netbook back into a GP computer and that meant
Windows. The makers couldn't use Vista and keep the parts price low, so MS
allowed them to use XP for an extended period and has targeted Win7.0 to
have a version suitable to the perceived market needs.
> If I have a small device that's meant to do Web browsing and email, why do
> I need Windows?
You do not, obviously. All you need is to convince buyers that your device
is worth having at that restricted function level. It has been a tough sell
and a mini-notebook version is much more popular.
Andrew Halliwell
> Netbooks were not such a hot item, though, since they didn't actually do
> more than the phones and cost a lot and were bulky compared to phones, etc.
> The answer was to make the netbook back into a GP computer and that meant
> Windows.
Bull.
> You do not, obviously. All you need is to convince buyers that your device
> is worth having at that restricted function level.
What "restricted functions" would those be?
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
Sermo Malifer
>
> "Sermo Malifer" <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote in message
> news:glcoac$t2c$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>
>> There's some great double talk in that article. If nobody wanted
>> Linux in a NetBook, why did M$ need to develop a WinXP/Win7 strategy
>> in a desperate bid to stem the tide of Linux?
>>
> Well, you are somewhat confused, it seems, and I can put your straight.
Actually you're the confused one who needs to be put straight.
> The Netbook device originated MOL as a linux powered, restricted
> function device that would browse the web and do email much like the
> latest cell phones, except that it would have a more traditional and
> useful display and keyboard. After all, the web and mail is a real pain
> from a telephone device.
At least you're good at belaboring the obvious.
> Netbooks were not such a hot item,
NetBooks were and are a very hot item. Linux NetBooks launched a new
form factor before M$ decided to jump in front of the parade and shout
"follow me!"
> though, since they didn't actually do
> more than the phones and cost a lot and were bulky compared to phones,
> etc. The answer was to make the netbook back into a GP computer and that
> meant Windows.
You failed to understand the article you snipped from this post. The
issue wasn't making NetBooks into GP computers, it was that people
supposedly can't deal with Linux.
> The makers couldn't use Vista and keep the parts price
> low, so MS allowed them to use XP for an extended period and has
> targeted Win7.0 to have a version suitable to the perceived market needs.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
>> If I have a small device that's meant to do Web browsing and email,
>> why do I need Windows?
>
> You do not, obviously.
I knew I could count on you, Cap'n!
> All you need is to convince buyers that your
> device is worth having at that restricted function level.
IOW, convince your customers that the device they bought should be used
for what it was made to do.
> It has been a
> tough sell and a mini-notebook version is much more popular.
Actually NetBooks have been selling quite well before M$ got involved.
They didn't have anything to do with the creation of the NetBook form
factor, they're trying to co-opt it after it became a success. With XP
NetBooks need more hardware and cost more.
amicus_curious
"Andrew Halliwell" <spi...@ponder.sky.com> wrote in message
news:65cp46-...@ponder.sky.com...
> amicus_curious <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
>> Netbooks were not such a hot item, though, since they didn't actually do
>> more than the phones and cost a lot and were bulky compared to phones,
>> etc.
>> The answer was to make the netbook back into a GP computer and that meant
>> Windows.
>
> Bull.
>
are not fooling anyone.
>> You do not, obviously. All you need is to convince buyers that your
>> device
>> is worth having at that restricted function level.
>
> What "restricted functions" would those be?
> --
Remember, if you can stand it, the original hype around the netbook which
was pure Linux based at the onset. See things like
http://reviews.cnet.com/laptops/asus-eee-pc-4g/4505-3121_7-32466960.html
to refresh your memory.
Sermo Malifer
>
> "Andrew Halliwell" <spi...@ponder.sky.com> wrote in message
> news:65cp46-...@ponder.sky.com...
>> amicus_curious <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
>>> Netbooks were not such a hot item, though, since they didn't actually do
>>> more than the phones and cost a lot and were bulky compared to
>>> phones, etc.
>>> The answer was to make the netbook back into a GP computer and that
>>> meant Windows.
>>
>> Bull.
>>
> Easy for you to say if you can't figure out any rational response, but
> you are not fooling anyone.
He's not the one who's trying to fool somebody.
>>> You do not, obviously. All you need is to convince buyers that your
>>> device
>>> is worth having at that restricted function level.
>>
>> What "restricted functions" would those be?
>> --
> Remember, if you can stand it, the original hype around the netbook
> which was pure Linux based at the onset. See things like
>
> http://reviews.cnet.com/laptops/asus-eee-pc-4g/4505-3121_7-32466960.html
>
> to refresh your memory.
"The good: Small, light, and inexpensive; solid-state hard drive is fast
and efficient; well-thought-out preinstalled software package."
"We can't imagine 512MB of RAM or a 900MHz Intel Mobile processor would
results in a pleasant Windows Vista experience (maybe the stripped down
Vista Basic version in a pinch), but these meager specs suffice for lean
Linux. We were able to surf the Web and work on some office documents
with absolutely no stuttering or slowdown, which was a pleasant surprise."
You should have read the article you referenced.
The Lost Packet
> amicus_curious <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
>> Netbooks were not such a hot item, though, since they didn't actually do
>> more than the phones and cost a lot and were bulky compared to phones, etc.
>> The answer was to make the netbook back into a GP computer and that meant
>> Windows.
>
> Bull.
>
>> You do not, obviously. All you need is to convince buyers that your device
>> is worth having at that restricted function level.
>
> What "restricted functions" would those be?
ha.
just had a call from an old client. He just got some EeePC 1000 40GBSSD
netbooks in for customers who asked for Linux netbooks - they arrived
with xp on them. I'm to go in tomorrow and install Linux images on
them... good thing I already have a restore image ready to go... easy money.
Hell, I don't even do this shit anymore.
George Barca
If they are new I would consider returning them for what he
ordered because this way the manufacturer's warranty stays in
place.
George Barca
georgeb...@geeeeemale.com
Terry Porter
>
> "Sermo Malifer" <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote in message
> news:glcoac$t2c$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>
>> There's some great double talk in that article. If nobody wanted Linux
>> in a NetBook, why did M$ need to develop a WinXP/Win7 strategy in a
>> desperate bid to stem the tide of Linux?
>>
> Well, you are somewhat confused, it seems, and I can put your straight.
> The Netbook device originated MOL as a linux powered, restricted function
> device
Incorrect. It wasn't restricted. It came with Forefox, networking, wifi,
Open Office and a package manager.
Using your definition, Windows is a restricted function OS.
> Netbooks were not such a hot item,
Incorrect, Netbooks started the "third form factor" craze. They were and
still are *very* HOT items.
>> If I have a small device that's meant to do Web browsing and email, why
>> do I need Windows?
>
> You do not, obviously. All you need is to convince buyers that your
> device
> is worth having at that restricted function level. It has been a tough
> sell
Yeah, 10 million devices, what a tough sell.
I finally have realised this "amicus_curious" troll is not Flatfish.
Flatfish was never this stupid and didn't corrupt the truth with such
abandon.
Wiseberger or whoever you are, your score is now -1000.
--
If we wish to reduce our ignorance, there are people we will
indeed listen to. Trolls are not among those people, as trolls, more or
less by definition, *promote* ignorance.
Kelsey Bjarnason, C.O.L.A. 2008
Terry Porter
<snip>
>
> just had a call from an old client. He just got some EeePC 1000 40GBSSD
> netbooks in for customers who asked for Linux netbooks - they arrived
> with xp on them. I'm to go in tomorrow and install Linux images on
> them... good thing I already have a restore image ready to go... easy
> money.
>
> Hell, I don't even do this shit anymore.
I'd be returning the units, "defective, not as ordered' and not pay the
Windows tax.
What distro will you install on them ?
High Plains Thumper
> amicus_curious wrote:
>> Andrew Halliwell wrote...
Only problem is that Windows 7, unless they lighten the specs
(not artificially raised such as with "Vista Capable"), per:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/dd353205.aspx
specs are still a little heavy at 1 GHz CPU, 1 GB RAM, 16 GB hard
disk space. Heavier netbooks such as the Acer One 150 may
qualify. Under WinXP performance is acceptable, but lighter
versions like Fedora based Linpus with a light desktop like XFCE
really shine.
I foresee a light version netbook using RISC processor running
Linux being sold for under $150 US. Such will be an instant
success. People are interested in most bang for the buck.
These will not be Windows ready, but at such a cost will be
irresistible with the public and business sector. Such will out
do the PDA's.
--
HPT
Quando omni flunkus moritati
(If all else fails, play dead)
- "Red" Green
amicus_curious
> amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>> "Andrew Halliwell" <spi...@ponder.sky.com> wrote in message
>> news:65cp46-...@ponder.sky.com...
>>> amicus_curious <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
>>>> Netbooks were not such a hot item, though, since they didn't actually
>>>> do
>>>> more than the phones and cost a lot and were bulky compared to phones,
>>>> etc.
>>>> The answer was to make the netbook back into a GP computer and that
>>>> meant Windows.
>>>
>>> Bull.
>>>
>> Easy for you to say if you can't figure out any rational response, but
>> you are not fooling anyone.
>
> He's not the one who's trying to fool somebody.
>
in the sand and try to make lemonade out of lemons, but forget to remove the
peels. The net book is not a battle ground where linux is making inroads
into Windows' traditional share at all. It is a product that was initially
100% linux and where linux has lost 70% or more of its intial share in the
short space of a year. You can only read that as a tradgedy for linux and
see the likelihood that Windows 7, with a version tailored to the netbook
hardware class, will finish the job.
>>>> You do not, obviously. All you need is to convince buyers that your
>>>> device
>>>> is worth having at that restricted function level.
>>>
>>> What "restricted functions" would those be?
>>> --
>> Remember, if you can stand it, the original hype around the netbook which
>> was pure Linux based at the onset. See things like
>>
>> http://reviews.cnet.com/laptops/asus-eee-pc-4g/4505-3121_7-32466960.html
>>
>> to refresh your memory.
>
> "The good: Small, light, and inexpensive; solid-state hard drive is fast
> and efficient; well-thought-out preinstalled software package."
>
> "We can't imagine 512MB of RAM or a 900MHz Intel Mobile processor would
> results in a pleasant Windows Vista experience (maybe the stripped down
> Vista Basic version in a pinch), but these meager specs suffice for lean
> Linux. We were able to surf the Web and work on some office documents with
> absolutely no stuttering or slowdown, which was a pleasant surprise."
>
> You should have read the article you referenced.
Well I did and it was presented as proof that the linux netbooks had a very
restricted feature set and a dumbed down interface to hide the fact.
amicus_curious
"High Plains Thumper" <highplai...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:497a6599$0$3339$6e1e...@read.cnntp.org...
>
> specs are still a little heavy at 1 GHz CPU, 1 GB RAM, 16 GB hard disk
> space. Heavier netbooks such as the Acer One 150 may qualify.
Well naturally the new produzcts are going to be focused on the new models.
It is not very likely that the old ones will be produced anymore and equally
unlikely that anyone but eBay buyers will have much interest in them.
>
> I foresee a light version netbook using RISC processor running Linux being
> sold for under $150 US. Such will be an instant success. People are
> interested in most bang for the buck.
>
Weren't you the one harping about the $50 netbook a few weeks ago? Has
inflation set in already?
> These will not be Windows ready, but at such a cost will be irresistible
> with the public and business sector.
Yeah, they should sell like hotcakes.
amicus_curious
"The Lost Packet" <jmthelo...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:J1rel.59169$ey5....@newsfe18.ams2...
Well, I believe that more than the rest of your story, but don't you think
that all of this special handling is not going to help the notion that Linux
notebooks are more economical than Windows versions? How much easy money
are you expecting for this service? How is the user going to get a
discount? How come the old client could not get the machines from the
manufacturer with Linux pre-installed? Has the OEM quit making them?
amicus_curious
"George Barca" <georgeb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eagkn4pb5p9tl3pbi...@4ax.com...
>
> If they are new I would consider returning them for what he
> ordered because this way the manufacturer's warranty stays in
> place.
There you go with common sense! But that wouldn't make for as dramatic of a
sea story.
amicus_curious
>
> You failed to understand the article you snipped from this post. The
> issue wasn't making NetBooks into GP computers, it was that people
> supposedly can't deal with Linux.
>
low-cost, more or less full function GP computer. With Linux it was just a
note taker and email reader and web surfer.
>
> IOW, convince your customers that the device they bought should be used
> for what it was made to do.
>
More exactly convince your prospective customers that they want to pay the
price for a restricted function device.
>
>
> Actually NetBooks have been selling quite well before M$ got involved.
> They didn't have anything to do with the creation of the NetBook form
> factor, they're trying to co-opt it after it became a success. With XP
> NetBooks need more hardware and cost more.
Well, you are not in agreement with the story at
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28627170/ amd the claims of Mr Stephen Baker.
Maybe you should write into MSNBC and see if they want to quote you instead.
DFS
> "Sermo Malifer" <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote in message
> news:gld2u2$btf$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>
>> You failed to understand the article you snipped from this post. The
>> issue wasn't making NetBooks into GP computers, it was that people
>> supposedly can't deal with Linux.
>>
> Same thing, silly. Once Windows was put on the netbook, it became a
> small, low-cost, more or less full function GP computer. With Linux
> it was just a note taker and email reader and web surfer.
According to this guy, Linux makes netbooks an order of magnitude less
functional and usable than Windows:
"Despite our acceptance of the Linux operating system on the original ASUS
Eee PC, the move to Windows XP is a welcome one for me. Before I get any
hate mail from Linux fans, let me again reiterate: I had NO problems with
the Linux OS that ASUS originally included but the ability to run most
standard Windows applications on this machine extend its functionality and
usability by an order of magnitude."
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=543&type=expert&pid=5
amicus_curious
"Terry Porter" <lin...@netspace.net.au> wrote in message
news:kuCdnUFaEKu62efU...@netspace.net.au...
> amicus_curious wrote:
>
>
> Incorrect. It wasn't restricted. It came with Forefox, networking, wifi,
> Open Office and a package manager.
>
> Using your definition, Windows is a restricted function OS.
>
extend the features on the machine to use their favorite apps. With Linux
and particularly with the original netbook configuration such was not
possible and so is perceived as a restriction. Read the original article.
You chug around in the bush looking for some rustics to prey upon and that
causes you to lose sight of the mass markets. In the real world 99+% of all
computers, netbooks, PDAs, game consoles, telephones, etc., are never
modified beyond the manufacturer's original intent. The certainly can be
"modded" by the hobbyists who relish doing that sort of thing, but you have
to understand that is not the commercially interesting case.
>> Netbooks were not such a hot item,
>
> Incorrect, Netbooks started the "third form factor" craze. They were and
> still are *very* HOT items.
>
They were not initially "HOT", rather they "became" so. Right about the
time Windows showed up.
>
> Wiseberger or whoever you are, your score is now -1000.
>
You tell me. I have been trying to get the Shestowitz folk to put more of a
definition on this, but they seem unable to do so. Would Wiseberger be a
better name than amicus_curious? I'd change if I thought that it would have
more of an effect, but I don't see how.
amicus_curious
"DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote in message
news:ucGel.1072$S8....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
fact about how useful Linux is compared to Windows. First off, neither is
all that real to anyone. People see the applications they use and that is
what the computer means to them. Windows users have a long life experience
in Outlook as email, IE as browser, and the Windows desktop as how to access
all the other apps that they may have gotten into the habit of using, for
example Quicken. If the product works the way they expect it to work, they
are content. If not, they need to change their perceptions and so require
some motivation in the form of a reward to do that difficult thing.
If the reward is $30 off the list price of a new netbook or $50 off the list
price of a conventional notebook or desktop, that is not much of an
incentive. There are much bigger sales and savings as a regular course of
retail business. That amount of money is less than the sales tax and not
impressive compared to the significant shift in the perceived product.
Coupled with telling them some gibberish about how to convert their data
such as checking account from Quicken to something else or whatever other
work-around is suggested to make it "easy" to switch, the consumer is not
going to bite on the Linux apple.
If you call them Wintards and such, you position gets even worse.
Linux is more than a day late and many dollars short of the mark
commercially in the consumer realm and it will stay that way forever.
Hadron
Surely no one would dispute that that IS how many people feel? They
don't want to learn a new OS and a new set of apps when they can install
the ones they have already. It IS a problem to convince people that its
worth the effort. Unfortunately most people simply think it is not.
Hadron
Easy money? How much are you charging them? Who is paying?
Like most of yours stories it sounds like nonsense.
Or could you be Terry Porter?
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper wrote...
>
>> specs are still a little heavy at 1 GHz CPU, 1 GB RAM, 16 GB
>> hard disk space. Heavier netbooks such as the Acer One 150
>> may qualify.
>
> Well naturally the new produzcts are going to be focused on
> the new models. It is not very likely that the old ones will
> be produced anymore and equally unlikely that anyone but eBay
> buyers will have much interest in them.
>
>> I foresee a light version netbook using RISC processor
>> running Linux being sold for under $150 US. Such will be an
>> instant success. People are interested in most bang for the
>> buck.
>
> Weren't you the one harping about the $50 netbook a few weeks
> ago?
Interesting this troll should go ad hominem with using abusive
term such as "harping".
There was this post from Fritz Wuehler regarding a $50 netbook:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/02a87787b71763d8
of whom Hadron baselessly accused of being a nymshifter.
Unfortunately this troll feels such a worthy achievement by an
upcoming Chinese manufacturer would be considered only worthy of
a whine.
Anyone who can take the current technologies, like inexpensive
rubberised keyboards on a cell phone or television remote,
wireless and RISC cellphone technology and spin them into an
inexpensive netbook computer and yet make a profit is a worthy
achievement. I salute the Chinese for such.
It is also a positive achievement by the Linux community through
the Chinese to provide such a solid, lean operating system for
such, along with the appropriate office automation suite, web
browsing, E-mail and games expected of a netbook.
> Has inflation set in already?
My comment was in reference to what it would practically take in
the western world for accomplishment, and there is a lot of
lateral freedom between $50 and $150, but apparently this troll
has a problem with that.
>> These will not be Windows ready, but at such a cost will be
>> irresistible with the public and business sector.
>
> Yeah, they should sell like hotcakes.
That is a problem with these Wintrolls. Someone makes a
reasonable comment as a part of a discussion, and they all must
turn that into a flamefest.
Following has an apt description of this troll:
http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/01/billwg-troll.html
[quote]
Name: amicus_curious (aka billwg, Bill Weisgerber)
Traits:
* Microsoft apologist
* Habitual liar
* Thinks 'LOL!!!' makes his puerile posts credible
* Repeats the same lies even when proven to be lies
* Windbag
[/quote]
It all must be a part of the development of responsible thinking
and soon-to-be successful people in a challenging and motivating
classroom environment.
amicus_curious
"High Plains Thumper" <highplai...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> amicus_curious wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper wrote...
>>
>>> specs are still a little heavy at 1 GHz CPU, 1 GB RAM, 16 GB
>>> hard disk space. Heavier netbooks such as the Acer One 150
>>> may qualify.
>>
>> Well naturally the new produzcts are going to be focused on
>> the new models. It is not very likely that the old ones will
>> be produced anymore and equally unlikely that anyone but eBay
>> buyers will have much interest in them.
>>
>>> I foresee a light version netbook using RISC processor
>>> running Linux being sold for under $150 US. Such will be an
>>> instant success. People are interested in most bang for the
>>> buck.
>>
>> Weren't you the one harping about the $50 netbook a few weeks
>> ago?
>
> Interesting this troll should go ad hominem with using abusive term such
> as "harping".
>
seem to understand and are embarassing yourself.
> There was this post from Fritz Wuehler regarding a $50 netbook:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/02a87787b71763d8
>
> of whom Hadron baselessly accused of being a nymshifter.
>
I am sorry. I tend to lump you all together and do not precisely
differentiate as to who is claiming what from the result.
> Unfortunately this troll feels such a worthy achievement by an upcoming
> Chinese manufacturer would be considered only worthy of a whine.
>
> Anyone who can take the current technologies, like inexpensive
> rubberised keyboards on a cell phone or television remote,
> wireless and RISC cellphone technology and spin them into an
> inexpensive netbook computer and yet make a profit is a worthy
> achievement. I salute the Chinese for such.
>
> It is also a positive achievement by the Linux community through the
> Chinese to provide such a solid, lean operating system for such, along
> with the appropriate office automation suite, web browsing, E-mail and
> games expected of a netbook.
>
You made a premise that the hundreds of millions of computer users in the
world would abandon decades of experience in order to save $30 to $50 on the
purchase price of something that was significantly different from their
expectations. That is a lot of dependency on a very little bit of money. I
would rather argue that people with such limited means would not be in the
market for an auxiliary machine in the first place. They will doubtless
value their prior experience and software investment much more highly than
that when they do obtain the means to afford a netbook.
>> Has inflation set in already?
>
> My comment was in reference to what it would practically take in
> the western world for accomplishment, and there is a lot of
> lateral freedom between $50 and $150, but apparently this troll has a
> problem with that.
>
>>> These will not be Windows ready, but at such a cost will be
>>> irresistible with the public and business sector.
>>
>> Yeah, they should sell like hotcakes.
>
> That is a problem with these Wintrolls. Someone makes a reasonable
> comment as a part of a discussion, and they all must turn that into a
> flamefest.
>
> Following has an apt description of this troll:
>
> http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/01/billwg-troll.html
>
> [quote]
> Name: amicus_curious (aka billwg, Bill Weisgerber)
>
Do you believe any of that? I assume that you do, but can you put a little
more information into the pot? I have asked several time, even asking the
Shestowitz fellow, but I never get any substantive answer. You are somehow
suggesting that, since I have a real name which you assume to be Bill
Weisberger, I am somehow in the pay of Microsoft. Now that is truly an ad
hominem sort of attack and one without any merit at all.
DFS
> There was this post from Fritz Wuehler regarding a $50 netbook:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/02a87787b71763d8
>
> of whom Hadron baselessly accused of being a nymshifter.
No, baseless is when a loser like you accuses me of lying.
Hadron is 100% spot on. Fritz Wuehler is the jagoff who's posted "Windows
7 - I hate it ALREADY!!!!" under five different nyms.
Non scrivetemi
Fritz Wuehler
Anonymous Remailer
Anonymous
Dave U. Random
> That is a problem with these Wintrolls. Someone makes a
> reasonable comment as a part of a discussion, and they all must
> turn that into a flamefest.
Versus cola idiots taking an innocuous statement by Microsoft and whining
that the Dept of Justice needs to get involved.
Hadron
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
>> There was this post from Fritz Wuehler regarding a $50 netbook:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/02a87787b71763d8
>>
>> of whom Hadron baselessly accused of being a nymshifter.
>
>
> No, baseless is when a loser like you accuses me of lying.
>
> Hadron is 100% spot on. Fritz Wuehler is the jagoff who's posted "Windows
> 7 - I hate it ALREADY!!!!" under five different nyms.
I own the COLA loons and they know it. It's why a few have indeed hidden
behind killfiles now. I can read into their sour, shrivelled, jealous
little souls and they know it. I certainly have that fraud Liarmutt's
number. And I'm still waiting for his list of DDD features which Visual
Studio lacks. ONLY could Liarmutt come out with such attempted l337ness
forgetting, in his frenzy of boasting and showing off he developer
creds, that he would be called on it.
I would not mind, but I love Linux and disagree with your slopware
generalisation. I do think MUCH of OSS is garbage, but most of what you
NEED is there and is very good for the price. Linux itself is FAR more
stable and secure than Windows are much easier (when you know how) to
configure for distributed computing securely.
>
> Non scrivetemi
> Fritz Wuehler
> Anonymous Remailer
> Anonymous
> Dave U. Random
>
>
>
>
>> That is a problem with these Wintrolls. Someone makes a
>> reasonable comment as a part of a discussion, and they all must
>> turn that into a flamefest.
>
> Versus cola idiots taking an innocuous statement by Microsoft and whining
> that the Dept of Justice needs to get involved.
"COLA Idiots" needs to be made a recognised term.
Don Zeigler
> I own the COLA loons and they know it.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You're nearly as delusional as your ass buddy Snit. Neither
of you own jack.
--
" " - [cloaked tagline]
Regards,
[dmz]
Owner and proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC
Snit
20090125145302...@this.domain.or.that, "Don Zeigler"
<sit...@this.computer> wrote:
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> I own the COLA loons and they know it.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You're nearly as delusional as your ass buddy Snit. Neither
> of you own jack.
You sure beg for my attention a lot.
William Poaster
trolls, Don Zeigler was heard to say:
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> I own the COLA loons and they know it.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You're nearly as delusional as your ass buddy Snit.
> Neither of you own jack.
The Hadron Quack troll's a kook.
High Plains Thumper
> above shriek & whine of trolls, Don Zeigler:
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> I own the COLA loons and they know it.
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You're nearly as delusional as your ass
>> buddy Snit. Neither of you own jack.
>
> The Hadron Quack troll's a kook.
Also Hadron thinks $100 AU ($65 US or 48 GBP) is unreasonable for
Terry's computer services, COLA advocates work for free (as is
free beer).
Terry Porter
> William Poaster wrote:
>> above shriek & whine of trolls, Don Zeigler:
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> I own the COLA loons and they know it.
>>>
>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You're nearly as delusional as your ass
>>> buddy Snit. Neither of you own jack.
>>
>> The Hadron Quack troll's a kook.
>
> Also Hadron thinks $100 AU ($65 US or 48 GBP) is unreasonable for
> Terry's computer services, COLA advocates work for free (as is
> free beer).
>
Actually I have a Linux *only* WiFi business.
I have never been the business of installing Linux to make money as I
decided about 20 years ago that getting involved with PC's to make money
would be very unsatisfying for me.
I'm an electronics technician, specializing in embedded, instrumentation,
rf, and analog.
My $100 fee was for those that pestered me to install Linux for them and
served two purposes.
1) make sure they were serious.
2) compensate me for my time, because although Linux is Free, my time is
not.
Just looking back at some of my invoices:
26.07.2006 Install Kubuntu 6.06 on P5VDC-MX, install 'Webmin' and demo :
$250
I also installed Slackware with the Ratpoison window manager and Kismet on a
laptop for this customer (to do WiFi site survey work) for around $250.
All together this client has spent about $19,000 with me since 2006. He is
just one of my 1038 clients.
Join the winning team, and get your Free GNU/Linux/Ubuntu CD at :-
http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download
High Plains Thumper
When in the business, I would expect one to charge for his work.
After all, unless for charity or a special favour, ones work is
worth the time. The clone dealers in town do exactly the same
thing. When a customer brings in a borked PC, they charge by the
hour. So if it takes 2 hours to repair, clean of virus taints,
etc., customer pays $130 US or so.
The only reason why Hadron and the other Wintrolls accuse you, is
because their basic FUD is Linux earns no money. It is not
beyond them to denigrate anything that shows Linux is worth the
time, money, investment, and etc.
It all smacks of this underlying theme:
'Use ... the Internet, etc. to heighten the impression that the
enemy is desperate, demoralized, defeated, ... associated with
mental deficiency, as in, "he believes in Santa Claus, the Easter
Bunny". Just keep rubbing it in, via the ... newsgroups, ... make
the complete failure of the competition's technology part of the
mythology of the computer industry.'
(Comes vs Microsoft lawsuit, Microsoft Evangelism document, PDF
pages 45 & 55 on http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf )
Best way to counter FUD, is the blinding truth (and an occasional
LART. Thanks BTW for your previous efforts, they bore fruit).
George Barca
Ever go to a party where an MD friend is present?
All of a sudden everyone is talking about their aliments.
A good friend of mine, a doctor, once told me that there is no
shame in charging for your work. What he would do was politely
offer these people an appointment to be looked at in a "proper
setting". It worked like a charm.
George Barca
georgeb...@geeeeemale.com
DFS
Not one word of your response is related to Linux advocacy. Why are you
here, nymshifter and trespasser?
High Plains Thumper
To help bring off-topic. lying, nymshifting, hypocritical, Linux
hating trouble making tresspasser perps like you that have no
place in this newsgroup to a proper end.
--
HPT
[WEB] Galatians 6:7
Don’t be deceived. God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows,
that will he also reap.
Snit
on 1/25/09 10:24 PM:
> DFS wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>
>>> Best way to counter FUD, is the blinding truth (and an
>>> occasional LART. Thanks BTW for your previous efforts, they
>>> bore fruit).
>>
>> Not one word of your response is related to Linux advocacy.
>> Why are you here, nymshifter and trespasser?
>
> To help bring off-topic. lying, nymshifting, hypocritical, Linux
> hating trouble making tresspasser perps like you that have no
> place in this newsgroup to a proper end.
You do realize, I hope, that you just posted an ad hominem.
Or maybe you do not. You seem to not know what the term means.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>
>>> Best way to counter FUD, is the blinding truth (and an
>>> occasional LART. Thanks BTW for your previous efforts, they
>>> bore fruit).
>>
>> Not one word of your response is related to Linux advocacy.
>> Why are you here, nymshifter and trespasser?
>
> To help bring off-topic. lying, nymshifting, hypocritical, Linux
> hating trouble making tresspasser perps like you that have no
> place in this newsgroup to a proper end.
Your claim that I lie is a bald-faced lie.
Your claim that I'm a nymshifter is a lie.
Your claim that I'm a hypocrite is a lie.
Like your "FAQ" says: lie, lie, lie
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper stated:
>> DFS wrote:
>>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>>
>>>> Best way to counter FUD, is the blinding truth (and an
>>>> occasional LART. Thanks BTW for your previous efforts, they
>>>> bore fruit).
>>>
>>> Not one word of your response is related to Linux advocacy.
>>> Why are you here, nymshifter and trespasser?
>>
>> To help bring off-topic. lying, nymshifting, hypocritical, Linux
>> hating trouble making tresspasser perps like you that have no
>> place in this newsgroup to a proper end.
>
> You do realize, I hope, that you just posted an ad hominem.
> Or maybe you do not. You seem to not know what the term means.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
[quote]
7.6 Trespasser Disinformation Tactics
41. Use of Undefined Terminology. Use terms such as
"indoctrinated" as a substitute for "educated" or "experienced"
when referring to a Linux Advocate. Use "pedantic" in place of
"correct", "precise", or "accurate" when referring to a Linux
Advocate. Create and use personal definitions such as
"commercial quality" for impressive sounding terms to mislead the
unwary. But never share your definitions for your inappropriate
terminology. This is commonly known as Troll-speak.
[/quote]
--
HPT
[WEB] Proverbs 20:3
It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife; But every
fool will be quarreling.
Snit
on 1/25/09 10:51 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper stated:
>>> DFS wrote:
>>>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Best way to counter FUD, is the blinding truth (and an
>>>>> occasional LART. Thanks BTW for your previous efforts, they
>>>>> bore fruit).
>>>>
>>>> Not one word of your response is related to Linux advocacy.
>>>> Why are you here, nymshifter and trespasser?
>>>
>>> To help bring off-topic. lying, nymshifting, hypocritical, Linux
>>> hating trouble making tresspasser perps like you that have no
>>> place in this newsgroup to a proper end.
>>
>> You do realize, I hope, that you just posted an ad hominem.
>> Or maybe you do not. You seem to not know what the term means.
>
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
>
> [quote]
> 7.6 Trespasser Disinformation Tactics
LOL! You think it is "disinformation" to point out your comments as an ad
hominem... which proves you *still* have no idea what the term means.
Seriously, go look it up. You use the term a lot... learn what it is!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Gregory Shearman
>>
> Oh, but he is. You are one of the advocates like him who stick their head
> in the sand and try to make lemonade out of lemons, but forget to remove the
> peels. The net book is not a battle ground where linux is making inroads
> into Windows' traditional share at all. It is a product that was initially
> 100% linux and where linux has lost 70% or more of its intial share in the
> short space of a year. You can only read that as a tradgedy for linux and
> see the likelihood that Windows 7, with a version tailored to the netbook
> hardware class, will finish the job.
....Microsoft delays EOL of XP... how much longer are they going to keep
it alive? Until Microsoft can cram Windows 7 on one with an SSD?
I won't hold my breath waiting.
> Well I did and it was presented as proof that the linux netbooks had a very
> restricted feature set and a dumbed down interface to hide the fact.
Nope. They have a full feature set and you can install any version of
Linux on them for specialised work. My eeepc is almost as powerful as my
thinkpad, and has the same amount of memory... oh I forgot... windows
users all need 1G plus to get the same experience as Linux users.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Hadron
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> I own the COLA loons and they know it.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You're nearly as delusional as your ass buddy Snit. Neither
> of you own jack.
Actually you were not on the list I own. You are now.
Hadron
DFS, a question for you : Taking Terry "Telnet" Porter out of the
question, who is dumber? Willy or High Plains Hypocrite?
It's hard I know.
Clearly Liarmutt is the biggest suck up. 7 is clearly mad. Mark Kent
lives on a cloud (in his head) and Roy is a free loading lunatic with
ideas of grandeur. But out of the two, who do you think is the dumbest?
I still think High Plains Hypocrite is the dumbest purely because, from
his posts, he clearly thinks he is a positive "advocate".
High Plains Thumper
I can top that. One MD is a personal friend and when my daughter
was an adolescent, did an exam and gave a free perscription some
years ago while visiting with them.
And speaking of a party, I noticed that uninvited guest trolls
DFS, Hadron and Snit each provided nasty shameful replies to
derail this thread. It is why a Linux advocate created the blog
http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/
It has a description of each of the trolls.
DFS
> And speaking of a party, I noticed that uninvited guest trolls
> DFS, Hadron and Snit each provided nasty shameful replies to
> derail this thread.
I created this thread, you nincompoop.
> It is why a Linux advocate created the blog
> http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/
A Linux "advocate" created the blog because they were done freeloading
software for the night and would rather spend their time insulting us (for
setting them straight all the time) than contribute to the "community" by
writing documentation for KDE.
DFS
> DFS, a question for you : Taking Terry "Telnet" Porter out of the
> question, who is dumber? Willy or High Plains Hypocrite?
>
> It's hard I know.
It is.
For sheer lack of mental acuity as evidenced by his cola posts, I'll have to
go with Dumb Willie. chrisv has expanded beyond 'plonk' a little bit, so
Willie is now the most useless poster here. I bet 75% of his posts are 'me
too Quack is a troll!" lames.
amicus_curious
"Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:slrngnqqnv.8u...@netscape.net...
> On 2009-01-24, amicus_curious <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
>>>
>> Oh, but he is. You are one of the advocates like him who stick their
>> head
>> in the sand and try to make lemonade out of lemons, but forget to remove
>> the
>> peels. The net book is not a battle ground where linux is making inroads
>> into Windows' traditional share at all. It is a product that was
>> initially
>> 100% linux and where linux has lost 70% or more of its intial share in
>> the
>> short space of a year. You can only read that as a tradgedy for linux
>> and
>> see the likelihood that Windows 7, with a version tailored to the netbook
>> hardware class, will finish the job.
>
> ....Microsoft delays EOL of XP... how much longer are they going to keep
> it alive? Until Microsoft can cram Windows 7 on one with an SSD?
>
best of Linux is overpowered, in terms of OEM and user selection, by the 5
year old XP version (Windows 5.5). The consumers are aware of what they are
buying and they are not eager to buy Linux.
> I won't hold my breath waiting.
>
Well, you are just silly then. Microsoft is not a collection of oafs and
baboons as the snide picture is often painted by the COLA bretheren. The
developers there are well educated and experienced and fully capable of
developing to a specification. If the specification calls for a
low-capability hardware set as the base, they can do it. After all, XP
works there, how can you think that they cannot conjure up a version of Win7
that works as well?
>> Well I did and it was presented as proof that the linux netbooks had a
>> very
>> restricted feature set and a dumbed down interface to hide the fact.
>
> Nope. They have a full feature set and you can install any version of
> Linux on them for specialised work. My eeepc is almost as powerful as my
> thinkpad, and has the same amount of memory... oh I forgot... windows
> users all need 1G plus to get the same experience as Linux users.
>
You could perhaps install some other version of Linux, but next to no one is
about to do that. Linux hobbyists, sure, but that is a very small
percentage of the buyers. Most people buy the product to use it as is and
what you could do is not a sales point, rather what comes in the box is the
face of the product.
Doug Mentohl
The anally retentive pedantic obsession with words is the giveaway ..
aware baboons bretheren hobbyists hopelessness overpowered painted
people percentage picture point position product sales selection set
shows silly small snide some specification user version ..
Snit
on 1/26/09 5:18 AM:
You sure beg for my attention a lot.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
AM:
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
>> And speaking of a party, I noticed that uninvited guest trolls
>> DFS, Hadron and Snit each provided nasty shameful replies to
>> derail this thread.
>
> I created this thread, you nincompoop.
HPT will never admit to his error. He is just lashing out begging for
attention.
>> It is why a Linux advocate created the blog
>> http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/
>
> A Linux "advocate" created the blog because they were done freeloading
> software for the night and would rather spend their time insulting us (for
> setting them straight all the time) than contribute to the "community" by
> writing documentation for KDE.
HPT just begs and begs and begs. He is boring.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
on 1/26/09 5:18 AM:
> George Barca wrote:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
[quote] 1.4 The Charter of comp.os.linux.advocacy. The charter
of comp.os.linux.advocacy is: For discussion of the benefits of
Linux compared to other operating systems. [/quote]
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
on 1/25/09 10:51 PM:
> Snit wrote:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
Snit
on 1/25/09 10:24 PM:
> DFS wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>
>>> Best way to counter FUD, is the blinding truth (and an
>>> occasional LART. Thanks BTW for your previous efforts, they
>>> bore fruit).
>>
>> Not one word of your response is related to Linux advocacy.
>> Why are you here, nymshifter and trespasser?
>
> To help bring off-topic. lying, nymshifting, hypocritical, Linux
> hating trouble making tresspasser perps like you that have no
> place in this newsgroup to a proper end.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
Snit
on 1/25/09 8:33 AM:
> William Poaster wrote:
>> above shriek & whine of trolls, Don Zeigler:
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> I own the COLA loons and they know it.
>>>
>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You're nearly as delusional as your ass
>>> buddy Snit. Neither of you own jack.
>>
>> The Hadron Quack troll's a kook.
>
> Also Hadron thinks $100 AU ($65 US or 48 GBP) is unreasonable for
> Terry's computer services, COLA advocates work for free (as is
> free beer).
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
Snit
on 1/24/09 2:47 PM:
> amicus_curious wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper wrote...
>>
>>> specs are still a little heavy at 1 GHz CPU, 1 GB RAM, 16 GB
>>> hard disk space. Heavier netbooks such as the Acer One 150
>>> may qualify.
>>
>> Well naturally the new produzcts are going to be focused on
>> the new models. It is not very likely that the old ones will
>> be produced anymore and equally unlikely that anyone but eBay
>> buyers will have much interest in them.
>>
>>> I foresee a light version netbook using RISC processor
>>> running Linux being sold for under $150 US. Such will be an
>>> instant success. People are interested in most bang for the
>>> buck.
>>
>> Weren't you the one harping about the $50 netbook a few weeks
>> ago?
>
> Interesting this troll should go ad hominem with using abusive
> term such as "harping".
>
> There was this post from Fritz Wuehler regarding a $50 netbook:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/02a87787b71763d8
>
> of whom Hadron baselessly accused of being a nymshifter.
>
> Unfortunately this troll feels such a worthy achievement by an
> upcoming Chinese manufacturer would be considered only worthy of
> a whine.
>
> Anyone who can take the current technologies, like inexpensive
> rubberised keyboards on a cell phone or television remote,
> wireless and RISC cellphone technology and spin them into an
> inexpensive netbook computer and yet make a profit is a worthy
> achievement. I salute the Chinese for such.
>
> It is also a positive achievement by the Linux community through
> the Chinese to provide such a solid, lean operating system for
> such, along with the appropriate office automation suite, web
> browsing, E-mail and games expected of a netbook.
>
>> Has inflation set in already?
>
> My comment was in reference to what it would practically take in
> the western world for accomplishment, and there is a lot of
> lateral freedom between $50 and $150, but apparently this troll
> has a problem with that.
>
>>> These will not be Windows ready, but at such a cost will be
>>> irresistible with the public and business sector.
>>
>> Yeah, they should sell like hotcakes.
>
> That is a problem with these Wintrolls. Someone makes a
> reasonable comment as a part of a discussion, and they all must
> turn that into a flamefest.
>
> Following has an apt description of this troll:
>
> http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/01/billwg-troll.html
>
> [quote]
> Name: amicus_curious (aka billwg, Bill Weisgerber)
>
> Traits:
>
> * Microsoft apologist
> * Habitual liar
> * Thinks 'LOL!!!' makes his puerile posts credible
> * Repeats the same lies even when proven to be lies
> * Windbag
> [/quote]
>
> It all must be a part of the development of responsible thinking
> and soon-to-be successful people in a challenging and motivating
> classroom environment.
How about posting about Linux instead of your off-topic rant?
Gregory Shearman
>
> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:slrngnqqnv.8u...@netscape.net...
>> On 2009-01-24, amicus_curious <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>> Oh, but he is. You are one of the advocates like him who stick their
>>> head
>>> in the sand and try to make lemonade out of lemons, but forget to remove
>>> the
>>> peels. The net book is not a battle ground where linux is making inroads
>>> into Windows' traditional share at all. It is a product that was
>>> initially
>>> 100% linux and where linux has lost 70% or more of its intial share in
>>> the
>>> short space of a year. You can only read that as a tradgedy for linux
>>> and
>>> see the likelihood that Windows 7, with a version tailored to the netbook
>>> hardware class, will finish the job.
>>
>> ....Microsoft delays EOL of XP... how much longer are they going to keep
>> it alive? Until Microsoft can cram Windows 7 on one with an SSD?
>>
> Which only shows the hopelessness of the Linux product position. Here the
> best of Linux is overpowered, in terms of OEM and user selection, by the 5
> year old XP version (Windows 5.5). The consumers are aware of what they are
> buying and they are not eager to buy Linux.
You are unbelievable. The reason Linux fits on netbooks is because it
*scales* so well to your hardware. The netbooks are *not* underpowered
and they don't lack features (unless you run them with ancient XP).
>> I won't hold my breath waiting.
>>
> Well, you are just silly then. Microsoft is not a collection of oafs and
> baboons as the snide picture is often painted by the COLA bretheren. The
> developers there are well educated and experienced and fully capable of
> developing to a specification. If the specification calls for a
> low-capability hardware set as the base, they can do it. After all, XP
> works there, how can you think that they cannot conjure up a version of Win7
> that works as well?
This isn't the forum for a microsoft commercial. Go elsewhere to drop
your leavings.
>>> Well I did and it was presented as proof that the linux netbooks had a
>>> very
>>> restricted feature set and a dumbed down interface to hide the fact.
>>
>> Nope. They have a full feature set and you can install any version of
>> Linux on them for specialised work. My eeepc is almost as powerful as my
>> thinkpad, and has the same amount of memory... oh I forgot... windows
>> users all need 1G plus to get the same experience as Linux users.
>>
> You could perhaps install some other version of Linux, but next to no one is
> about to do that. Linux hobbyists, sure, but that is a very small
> percentage of the buyers. Most people buy the product to use it as is and
> what you could do is not a sales point, rather what comes in the box is the
> face of the product.
That's what I said. Most people are happy with their Linux netbooks as
they are. For those, like me, who like them for specialist work... they
can install another distro.
RonB
> "A year or so ago, when netbooks first came on the market, most featured
> the Linux operating system. For many potential buyers, other than
> technophiles, that was a deal-killer, said Stephen Baker, NPD Group's vice
> president of industry analysis.
What a load of horse crap. The reason Microsoft allowed OEMs to sell XP on
Netbooks was because of the success of Linux netbook sales. As for the the
estimate that 90% of netbooks have XP on them -- why not just say 99.9%? If
you're going to use bogus figures pulled out the air, why not go for broke?
Gee, and this "unbiased," full of shit, report was published on MSNBC. Isn't
that just cozy?
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
RonB
> Netbooks were not such a hot item,
They were such an insignificant item that Microsoft was forced to reverse
their "no XP sales" decision and start allowing OEMs to buy XP for
netbooks.
What tangled webs you liars weave...
RonB
> Remember, if you can stand it, the original hype around the netbook which
> was pure Linux based at the onset. See things like
>
> http://reviews.cnet.com/laptops/asus-eee-pc-4g/4505-3121_7-32466960.html
>
> to refresh your memory.
Don't confuse them with facts, their lies are already made up. Revisionism
is alive and well in WinTroll land.
RonB
> You could perhaps install some other version of Linux,
No "perhaps" about it.
The Lost Packet
dude, your CTRL-V is stuck.
The Lost Packet
From what I've seen of people who shop for netbooks, they have two
questions that are important to them - 1. does it do what it says on the
tin? and 2. does it do what /they/ want to do with what it's got without
having to fork out for extras for their new toaster-with-a-keyboard?
They don't want to fuck around with plugging in external optical drives
to install their office software, they want it already on there. They
don't want to slow it to a crawl with AV, their 1991 model Psion Series
3* didn't have AV and that thing was fucking rapid in its day - faster
than /most/ then-current home PCs. Far more functional out of the box,
too. IIRC it was one of the first consumer portable computers with a
32-bit multitasking operating system, if not /the/ first. IOW, they want
everything ready to go out of the box. To Joe Sixpack, a netbook is a
PDA with a keyboard strapped to its arse.
*I've still got mine! Does anyone have a serial cable for one they don't
mind parting with? A memory expansion module, mayhaps?
One couple I spoke to in Currys just before xmas were looking for a
/notebook/ for their son. They didn't want to spend stupid money, nor
did they want to get him anything with a huge screen (the lad already
had a desktop and wasn't a huge gamer anyway). The sales droid was
trying to sell them on a dual core beast of 17" screen and £900 tag.
They didn't need that. I spent about ten minutes with them giving the
pros and cons of that against a netbook with an 8" screen and a ticket
£650 less. Didn't take much convincing to sell them on several key points:
Yes, for an office monkey, a netbook makes for an adequate portable,
given it already has an MSO-compatible office suite.
With built in wireless, and HSDPA as an optional extra, networking is a
breeze. As is anywhere-internet. As is VOIP.
Given the last, synchronising documents with the desktop machine is a
doddle - the netbook OS comes with synch software.
Any other software needed was generally available through a single
default repository, with the options of adding further repositories
(even from the desktop) and running /some/ win32 binaries through (I
shuddered to use the term as it's highly inaccurate but suitable for the
kind of people I was talking to) an emulator (yes, I know WinE is an API
not an emulator).
For what it was for and the hardware involved, the unit didn't need
slowing down to a crawl with AV if the OS didn't need it. And this was
the clincher. They asked what the netbook used. Told 'em, a custom build
of Linux. After a moment's confused looks, eyes lit up with beams of
understanding, and they took the display box for an EeePC 1000 1G/40G
Linux in white to the pay counter. I love it when people pay attention
and want to learn what makes something great other than the fact that
people like me say it is.
They bought me a beer with some of the money they saved. Nice of 'em. :)
Terry Porter
<snip>
>They asked what the netbook used. Told 'em, a custom build
> of Linux. After a moment's confused looks, eyes lit up with beams of
> understanding, and they took the display box for an EeePC 1000 1G/40G
> Linux in white to the pay counter. I love it when people pay attention
> and want to learn what makes something great other than the fact that
> people like me say it is.
>
> They bought me a beer with some of the money they saved. Nice of 'em. :)
Well done!
The sales droids *hate* it tho.
--
If we wish to reduce our ignorance, there are people we will
indeed listen to. Trolls are not among those people, as trolls, more or
less by definition, *promote* ignorance.
Kelsey Bjarnason, C.O.L.A. 2008
Peter Köhlmann
Does he repost the same bullshit on a massive scale?
Then he has again been thrown out by his wife, and he is starving for
attention. Not taking his heavy meds isn't helping, either
--
Accident, n.:
A condition in which presence of mind is good, but absence of
body is better.
The Lost Packet
well, he's found a seat in my killbin, I can't be doing with him.
Hadron
> DFS wrote:
>
>> "A year or so ago, when netbooks first came on the market, most featured
>> the Linux operating system. For many potential buyers, other than
>> technophiles, that was a deal-killer, said Stephen Baker, NPD Group's vice
>> president of industry analysis.
>
> What a load of horse crap. The reason Microsoft allowed OEMs to sell XP on
> Netbooks was because of the success of Linux netbook sales. As for the
> the
Do you really believe that? If you do then you need to up your meds.
The reason they "allowed" it (MS developed special code for the netbook)
is that it was a developing market.
> estimate that 90% of netbooks have XP on them -- why not just say 99.9%? If
> you're going to use bogus figures pulled out the air, why not go for
> broke?
Surely you do not believe Richard Rasker? I have pointed out his
"mistakes" enough times for you to realise by now that XP is taking
over the netbook sales completely give or take. A quick glance at the
netbooks in any major store or at Amazon is enough to tell you that. A
shame, but that life. People cant be arsed to learn a new OS.
Snit
497ef81f$0$30225$9b4e...@newsspool1.arcor-online.net on 1/27/09 5:03 AM:
You sure beg for my attention a lot.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
AM:
Do a Google search and find out who has posted that exact text a lot more
than I have.
Hint: his initials are HPT.
He does not like being treated as he treats others. Oh well.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
RonB
>> What a load of horse crap. The reason Microsoft allowed OEMs to sell XP
>> on Netbooks was because of the success of Linux netbook sales. As for
>> the
>> the
>
> Do you really believe that? If you do then you need to up your meds.
> The reason they "allowed" it (MS developed special code for the netbook)
> is that it was a developing market.
I don't believe it, I know it. Unlike Microsoft, ass-kissing, lying
WinTrolls, I don't try altering reality by revising history.
Hadron
You silly sod. It could have bee any OS there. The market appeared, MS
targeted it. Easy.
How that makes me an MS Ass Kisser I dont know.
Or do you think MS does NOT dominate the market now? It does. And you
know it.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> estimate that 90% of netbooks have XP on them -- why not just say 99.9%? If
>> you're going to use bogus figures pulled out the air, why not go for
>> broke?
>
> Surely you do not believe Richard Rasker? I have pointed out his
> "mistakes" enough times
Twice.
> for you to realise by now that XP is taking
> over the netbook sales completely give or take. A quick glance at the
> netbooks in any major store or at Amazon is enough to tell you that. A
> shame, but that life. People cant be arsed to learn a new OS.
Poor Hadron. Reduced to lying. Who'd a thunk it?
http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2009/01/20/looking-for-linux-but-sold-out/
I had an interesting time scouring the Internet for the right netbook for
my wife, who's got a birthday coming up, is due for a new computer
and is anxious to use Linux more regularly. While there was the usual
difficulty in finding the right specs and color, the biggest hangup was
trying to find an Acer Aspire One netbook with Linux on it. It's not
that they aren't made by the manufacturer, it's that all the
Linux netbooks seem to be getting gobbled up. What was widely available
in all of the color, memory, hard-drive and other forms was Windows XP.
There were loads and loads of Windows XP netbooks, . . .
The message for Acer and other manufacturers: up your ratio of Linux
netbooks. While North America seems to be the main market for these
machines, about 30% of which run Linux by most accounts, among my
dwindling options for obtaining the right Linux netbook were in Canada
and the UK.
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=384681&rel_no=1
Asustek Chairman Jonney Shih has predicted that about 60 percent of Eee
PCs to be shipped in 2009 will have Windows XP.
So, hmmm, Hadron translates Linux numbers of 40% as
> XP is taking over the netbook sales completely give or take...
*LMAO*
He expects us to swallow his bullshit?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/387088_msftnetbooks10.html
As many as 25 percent of netbooks don't use Windows at all and instead
run the Linux operating system.
Yeah, XP's taking over the netbooks "completely give or take".
I dub him "Fudron".
--
The difference between art and science is that science is what we
understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else.
-- Donald Knuth, "Discover"
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 07:43:16 -0600, Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
Indeed. Looks like Hadron is emitting a bullshit particle and decaying into
a Fudron.
--
Lisp, Lisp, Lisp Machine,
Lisp Machine is Fun.
Lisp, Lisp, Lisp Machine,
Fun for everyone.
The Lost Packet
> After takin' a swig o' grog, RonB belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 07:43:16 -0600, Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> What a load of horse crap. The reason Microsoft allowed OEMs to sell XP
>>>> on Netbooks was because of the success of Linux netbook sales. As for
>>>> the
>>>> the
>>> Do you really believe that? If you do then you need to up your meds.
>>> The reason they "allowed" it (MS developed special code for the netbook)
>>> is that it was a developing market.
>> I don't believe it, I know it. Unlike Microsoft, ass-kissing, lying
>> WinTrolls, I don't try altering reality by revising history.
>
> Indeed. Looks like Hadron is emitting a bullshit particle and decaying into
> a Fudron.
>
my rad badge just turned brown...
DFS
Worse, you post blatant bullshit lies like "I switched to Linux" or "Windows
has to be rebooted constantly" or "Windows has to be rebooted 20x per day"
RonB
> Worse, you post blatant bullshit lies like "I switched to Linux" or
> "Windows has to be rebooted constantly" or "Windows has to be rebooted
> 20x per day"
I guess we're the bullshit twins. But you win on pure volume.
RonB
> Worse, you post blatant bullshit lies like "I switched to Linux" or
> "Windows has to be rebooted constantly" or "Windows has to be rebooted
> 20x per day"
Oh, by the way, numbnuts -- I did switch from Windows. I've never lied
about it, but of course you Hadron claim I lie about it. You and Hadron
would claim I lied if I said the sun rises in the East.
Now, be a ice troll and drool into you bucket instead of on the floor.
DFS
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:57:22 -0600, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>
>> Worse, you post blatant bullshit lies like "I switched to Linux" or
>> "Windows has to be rebooted constantly" or "Windows has to be
>> rebooted 20x per day"
>
> Oh, by the way, numbnuts -- I did switch from Windows.
No, you didn't. You switched from Windows to "Linux with Windows in a VM
because OSS crapware can't compete"
> I've never lied about it,
You lie about it every time you claim it.
DFS
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:57:22 -0600, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>
>> Worse, you post blatant bullshit lies like "I switched to Linux" or
>> "Windows has to be rebooted constantly" or "Windows has to be
>> rebooted 20x per day"
>
> I guess we're the bullshit twins. But you win on pure volume.
ALL my "bullshit" is true, but some of your bullshit is untrue.
Snit
Hey, you accuse me of lying and repeatedly fail to offer a shred of
evidence. Now you are whining that you think others do the same to you.
Are you looking for sympathy?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
RonB
Oh... riiiight.. wink, wink.
RonB
> RonB wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:57:22 -0600, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Worse, you post blatant bullshit lies like "I switched to Linux" or
>>> "Windows has to be rebooted constantly" or "Windows has to be
>>> rebooted 20x per day"
>>
>> Oh, by the way, numbnuts -- I did switch from Windows.
>
> No, you didn't. You switched from Windows to "Linux with Windows in a VM
> because OSS crapware can't compete"
No, I switched from Windows to Linux because I was tired of trying to keep
viruses out of Windows. The programs I run in Windows are -- and try to
keep up -- Movie Magic Screenwriter, Visual dBASE and NetObjects -- not
exactly staples in the Windows world, are they? And definitely not the
programs I usually use when I go to my computer.
>> I've never lied about it,
>
> You lie about it every time you claim it.
No, you're the liar. I never claimed I *didn't* use Windows 2000 under
VirtualBox. You're the only lying piece of shit who makes that claim.
RonB
wrote:
> Hey, you accuse me of lying and repeatedly fail to offer a shred of
> evidence. Now you are whining that you think others do the same to you.
>
> Are you looking for sympathy?
Ah, the little whinny shitbird jumps in. Trolls of a feather flock
together.
Looking for sympathy from you? Not a chance. It would be the ultimate
insult.
DFS
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:32:37 -0600, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>
>> RonB wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:57:22 -0600, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Worse, you post blatant bullshit lies like "I switched to Linux" or
>>>> "Windows has to be rebooted constantly" or "Windows has to be
>>>> rebooted 20x per day"
>>>
>>> Oh, by the way, numbnuts -- I did switch from Windows.
>>
>> No, you didn't. You switched from Windows to "Linux with Windows in
>> a VM because OSS crapware can't compete"
>
> No, I switched from Windows to Linux because I was tired of trying to
> keep viruses out of Windows. The programs I run in Windows are -- and
> try to keep up -- Movie Magic Screenwriter, Visual dBASE and
> NetObjects -- not exactly staples in the Windows world, are they? And
> definitely not the programs I usually use when I go to my computer.
Who cares? A "switch" means on or off, Linux or Windows, not "Linux with
Windows and Windows apps in a VM because I can't find decent OSS
equivalents."
>>> I've never lied about it,
>>
>> You lie about it every time you claim it.
>
> No, you're the liar. I never claimed I *didn't* use Windows 2000 under
> VirtualBox. You're the only lying piece of shit who makes that claim.
I never made that claim, fool.
You claimed you switched to Linux, but you keep forgetting the asterisk *.
* = run Windows and Windows apps in a VM because OSS crapware can't compete
RonB
>> No, you're the liar. I never claimed I *didn't* use Windows 2000 under
>> VirtualBox. You're the only lying piece of shit who makes that claim.
>
> I never made that claim, fool.
>
> You claimed you switched to Linux, but you keep forgetting the asterisk
> *.
The claim you made, dipshit, is that I lied about using VirtualBox. Do try
to keep up.
As for the so called asterisk, I've never denied I use Windows programs in
VirtualBox. But, would you need an asterisk if you ran Linux under Windows
in a Virtual Machine? (Who would ever want to is beside the point.) No,
because you would be running Windows, that's the host OS, that would be
your the OS you were using.
You insinuation is that I do most of my computing in Windows, under Linux.
This is simply a lie -- I never run *any* Microsoft applications -- except
Internet Explorer, which I use to download Firefox.
So much for the asterisk.
chrisv
>No, you're the liar. I never claimed I *didn't* use Windows 2000 under
>VirtualBox. You're the only lying piece of shit who makes that claim.
KF the POS.
William Poaster
trolls, Chris Ahlstrom was heard to say:
More like "Half-wit Hadron" - Definition: Having only a limited ability
to learn and understand.
Snit
I am noting how you are whining about people doing to you what you do to me.
An apology would have been your mature response.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
DFS
> I would not mind, but I love Linux and disagree with your slopware
> generalisation.
I'm waiting for that magical day when a distro proves me wrong. So far I've
been disappointed over and over and over.
> I do think MUCH of OSS is garbage, but most of what
> you NEED is there and is very good for the price.
Linux: has what you need
Windows: has what you want
> Linux itself is FAR
> more stable and secure than Windows are much easier (when you know
> how) to configure for distributed computing securely.
I disagree it's more stable.
Snit
10:59 PM:
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> I would not mind, but I love Linux and disagree with your slopware
>> generalisation.
>
> I'm waiting for that magical day when a distro proves me wrong. So far I've
> been disappointed over and over and over.
I have noted that Linux has a *long* way to go to allowing choice for the
*user* in terms of how they want their system set up - what hot keys they
want, what common dialogs, etc.
The standard answer is to limit yourself to not just KDE or Gnome apps, but
to find those that actually follow those standards well.
But *nobody* has been able to provide a name of a distro nor a list of apps
to put on one's own system that would allow you to have a full featured
desktop that was also had even a relatively consistent UI.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
RonB
wrote:
> But *nobody* has been able to provide a name of a distro nor a list of
> apps to put on one's own system that would allow you to have a full
> featured
> desktop that was also had even a relatively consistent UI.
What a load of shit. But here's something for a shitbird like you to peck
at. Linux is *not* the Desktop. Got it?
Nah, and you won't either. Why don't you go back to pissing off the Mac
folks? Not surprisingly, they're not enamored with whiny little shitbirds
either.
Peter Köhlmann
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:05:15 -0600, Snit <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com>
> wrote:
>
>> But *nobody* has been able to provide a name of a distro nor a list of
>> apps to put on one's own system that would allow you to have a full
>> featured
>> desktop that was also had even a relatively consistent UI.
>
> What a load of shit. But here's something for a shitbird like you to peck
> at. Linux is *not* the Desktop. Got it?
That cretinous "IT teacher" simply ignores that you can run KDE only as
GUI. Or Gnome only.
In most cases the user would not miss a thing, since nearly all needs are
served by both desktops.
And in that case you have a *very* consistent UI, much more consistent than
for example the windows UI.
If the *user* decides that he likes some apps of the /other/ UI better, he
can use them. But it is the *users* choice, and the difference between
those UIs is less than that of the different windows paradigms we have
seen over time.
Only a shit-for-brains like Snot Glasser would have some "problems"
adapting to slightly looking widget sets
> Nah, and you won't either. Why don't you go back to pissing off the Mac
> folks? Not surprisingly, they're not enamored with whiny little shitbirds
> either.
>
Snot Michael Glasser is easily the most hated troll in CSMA of all time.
Nobody else has lied so much
--
What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic
simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog,
we can assume it will be pretty bad. --- Dave Barry
Hadron
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:05:15 -0600, Snit <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com>
> wrote:
>
>> But *nobody* has been able to provide a name of a distro nor a list
>> of apps to put on one's own system that would allow you to have a
>> full featured
>> desktop that was also had even a relatively consistent UI.
>
> What a load of shit. But here's something for a shitbird like you to
> peck at. Linux is *not* the Desktop. Got it?
In this context it is....
Or when people refer to a "Linux distro" you think it does not include
applications? Get a clue.
Snit
AM:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:05:15 -0600, Snit <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com>
> wrote:
>
>> But *nobody* has been able to provide a name of a distro nor a list of apps
>> to put on one's own system that would allow you to have a full featured
>> desktop that was also had even a relatively consistent UI.
>
> What a load of shit.
OK, so point to the distro.
Give the list of apps.
Prove me wrong.
But you won't. You will call it "shit", but, of course, you will *never* do
so. In other words: you are lying.
So now the question becomes why you feel the need to lie. Why? I really
want to know. Why is it that you are so tied up in denying the truth that
you insist on lying. Can you answer that?
> But here's something for a shitbird like you to peck
> at. Linux is *not* the Desktop. Got it?
Ah, now you are going to play semantic games and deny that Linux desktops
even exist. How... uh, clever of you. LOL!
> Nah, and you won't either. Why don't you go back to pissing off the Mac
> folks? Not surprisingly, they're not enamored with whiny little shitbirds
> either.
See how you lash out... all because you know I am right. Pathetic.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
49817b07$0$32669$9b4e...@newsspool2.arcor-online.net on 1/29/09 2:46 AM:
> RonB wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:05:15 -0600, Snit <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But *nobody* has been able to provide a name of a distro nor a list of
>>> apps to put on one's own system that would allow you to have a full
>>> featured
>>> desktop that was also had even a relatively consistent UI.
>>
>> What a load of shit. But here's something for a shitbird like you to peck
>> at. Linux is *not* the Desktop. Got it?
>
> That cretinous "IT teacher" simply ignores that you can run KDE only as
> GUI. Or Gnome only.
What RonB snippd:
I have noted that Linux has a *long* way to go to allowing
choice for the *user* in terms of how they want their system
set up - what hot keys they want, what common dialogs, etc.
The standard answer is to limit yourself to not just KDE or
Gnome apps, but to find those that actually follow those
standards well.
But *nobody* has been able to provide a name of a distro nor
a list of apps to put on one's own system that would allow
you to have a full featured desktop that was also had even a
relatively consistent UI.
Oops. Why not try to follow the thread, Peter? Is that too hard for you?
> In most cases the user would not miss a thing, since nearly all needs are
> served by both desktops.
So name the distro.
Or provide a list of apps.
Ah, but that is the rub: you cannot. You will keep going on and on and
on... but you know I am right. You prove I am right.
Again.
...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
> RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:05:15 -0600, Snit <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But *nobody* has been able to provide a name of a distro nor a list
>>> of apps to put on one's own system that would allow you to have a
>>> full featured
>>> desktop that was also had even a relatively consistent UI.
>>
>> What a load of shit. But here's something for a shitbird like you to
>> peck at. Linux is *not* the Desktop. Got it?
>
> In this context it is....
>
> Or when people refer to a "Linux distro" you think it does not include
> applications? Get a clue.
RonB and Peter are back to their little games:
What I said:
I have noted that Linux has a *long* way to go to allowing
choice for the *user* in terms of how they want their system
set up - what hot keys they want, what common dialogs, etc.
The standard answer is to limit yourself to not just KDE or
Gnome apps, but to find those that actually follow those
standards well.
But *nobody* has been able to provide a name of a distro nor
a list of apps to put on one's own system that would allow
you to have a full featured desktop that was also had even a
relatively consistent UI.
Notice how I specifically talk about KDE and Gnome. That will be important
in a minute. RonB responded:
What a load of shit. But here's something for a shitbird like
you to peck at. Linux is *not* the Desktop. Got it?
Notice how RonB completely and utterly fails to name a distro or provide a
list of apps. Completely fails. Of course. To obfuscate his failure he
pretends he does not know what desktop Linux even is. Amazing. But then
Peter jumped in:
That cretinous "IT teacher" simply ignores that you can run
KDE only as GUI. Or Gnome only.
What? I *specifically* talked about the standard answer of limiting
yourself to KDE or Gnome apps. Specifically. And yet Peter just flat out
denies it. Flat out lies.
And because the two of them know they are wrong - know beyond and shadow of
a doubt - they lash out against me and sink to name calling and obfuscation.
Same game they play all the time. If they believed their BS they would not
feel the need to sink to such immature behavior.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
JEDIDIAH
> Hadron wrote:
[deletia]
>> I do think MUCH of OSS is garbage, but most of what
>> you NEED is there and is very good for the price.
>
> Linux: has what you need
> Windows: has what you want
...and what would that be exactly?
The comfort of the herd?
[deletia]
--
The social cost of suing/prosecuting individuals |||
for non-commercial copyright infringement far outweighs / | \
the social value of copyright to begin with.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> I own the COLA loons and they know it. It's why a few have indeed hidden
> behind killfiles now. I can read into their sour, shrivelled, jealous
> little souls and they know it.
*LMAO*
> I certainly have that fraud Liarmutt's
> number. And I'm still waiting for his list of DDD features which Visual
> Studio lacks. ONLY could Liarmutt come out with such attempted l337ness
> forgetting, in his frenzy of boasting and showing off he developer
> creds, that he would be called on it.
Already posted it, not that long ago, silly man. Google for it.
> I would not mind, but I love Linux and disagree with your slopware
> generalisation. I do think MUCH of OSS is garbage, but most of what you
> NEED is there and is very good for the price. Linux itself is FAR more
> stable and secure than Windows are much easier (when you know how) to
> configure for distributed computing securely.
"Claim complete alignment."
> "COLA Idiots" needs to be made a recognised term.
The primary idiots here being the Lying Hadron Cunt and DFS.
<chuckles>
And to think that Hadron is me-tooing DFS! Oh dear!
--
It's pretty hard to tell what does bring happiness; poverty and wealth
have both failed.
-- Kim Hubbard
RonB
wrote:
> OK, so point to the distro.
>
> Give the list of apps.
>
> Prove me wrong.
Red Hat Linux (CentOS). Applications: Opera, Firefox, Open Office,
VirtualBox... and everything else I have loaded on my computer.
Your turn, FUDdite.
Snit
PM:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 04:42:19 -0600, Snit <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com>
> wrote:
>
>> OK, so point to the distro.
>>
>> Give the list of apps.
>>
>> Prove me wrong.
>
> Red Hat Linux (CentOS). Applications: Opera, Firefox, Open Office,
> VirtualBox... and everything else I have loaded on my computer.
>
> Your turn, FUDdite.
You pointed to *four* application. *Four*.
And one of them is designed to run other OSs where, almost by definition,
things will be inconsistent (same idea as when I run Windows or Linux in a
virtual box - at least it is a separate context... not as bad as having them
all mixed up).
Now why not post some screenshots to show how consistent your desktop is.
And, a question: why did you opt to have *your* desktop be consistent? Do
you think there is value in it? Clearly it is easier for a desktop Linux
user to follow the norm of Linux and *not* have consistency.
Kinda puts you in an awkward position, given how much you clearly strive to
disagree with me: either your desktop is really *not* consistent, in which
case you lied, or it *is*, in which case you clearly went out of your way to
seek such - being that it is not the norm of Linux. And in doing so you
showed you really agree with me.
Which is it?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]